Post Cycle Therapy (PCT)

[hooker]

Originally Posted by kethnaab

Question for Mr. Roberts -

What do you think about using your PCT combo for brief periods during a longer (say, 16-week) cycle to keep the ole' jewels happy and healthy?

i.e. on weeks 4, 8, and 12, using HCG, nolva and aromasin for, say, 3-5 days in the listed doses (500/20/20)?

and where the hell can I find aromasin? it's not illegal I don't think, so I can ask that here, right?

Sure, that could help a bit I guess.

www.ag-guys.com has aromasin and all the other legal research chems you could want.

[SWALE]

Far better it is to use HCG all through the cycle. Why don't we keep the horse in the barn, instead of letting him out, then having to chase him across three counties?

I notice that all the studies abstracted so far were conducted on human females (in particular, female subjects with breast cancer). We have to be careful about that! In many ways, human males and females respond completely different during hormonal manipulation. Extrapolating conclusions applied to males, from studies performed on females, is a strategy frought with peril.

[jb55638]

I asked the same fucking question about Aromasin...LOL...........none of my sources sell it either!! But, they answered the ? up above---ag guys---,

I'm interested to see Bob's response, but, personally, I think this particular PCT would concuse the hell out of your HPTA if your juicing concurrently.
JB

[kethnaab]

yeah yeah, so i found the aromasin. forget the 'where the hell' question. how about the rest?

[jb55638]

I asked the same ? about where to get aromasin........none of my sources sell it either, LOL. Above in the post some one told me AG-GUYS.com.
good luck

[winger]

Still a good read though.

[hooker]

Originally Posted by SWALE

Far better it is to use HCG all through the cycle. Why don't we keep the horse in the barn, instead of letting him out, then having to chase him across three counties?

I notice that all the studies abstracted so far were conducted on human females (in particular, female subjects with breast cancer). Extrapolating conclusions applied to males, from studies performed on females, is a strategy frought with peril.

What about the one on Vitamin E?

Originally Posted by SWALE

Having said that, we also need to keep in mind we are just doing the best we can with what we have to work with.

Exactly. Glad we're in agreement. I guess you posted 0 references in your PCT article for the same reason I posted 37 of them...we're just doing the best with what we have to work with.

I, however, am not a doctor, and realize you have vastly greater credibility for being one. Hence...I need to validate my opinions in a way that you don't need to. Ergo, the tons of references....

Sorry...I just have a couple of degrees, and none are science related...

From your PCT article, SWALE:

Originally Posted by SWALE

So far, all of them who have tried it have reported they are recovering faster than when they have tried other protocols.

This is actually the same thing the few people who have already tried my protocol have said....

[jb55638]

CAN SOME ONE PLEASE POINT ME IN THE DIRECTION OF SWALE'S PCT REGIME.............I WOULD LIKE TO JUXDEPOSE BOB'S AND THE DOC'S.
THANKS,
JB

[SWALE]

I'm not sure why it is I make mention of the fact you have heavily relied upon studies conducted on a completely different patient population, you completely ignore that fact. It would have been correct and appropriate instead to include in your paper verbage such as "while this study was actually conducted on females", or "this study was conducted on females with breast CA" to maintain scientific integrity.

Referencing studies which have little or nothing to do with the subject at hand adds no weight to any arguement. It also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the science involved.

As to the very interesting study regarding Vit E, it is not an issue with my patients, as they are already properly supplementing same. The important point then to make is that it must be a true "natural" Vitamin E, including the full spread of tocopherols. Basically, just look for the word "gamma" on the breakdown, and you should be alright.

[hooker]

Originally Posted by SWALE

I'm not sure why it is I make mention of the fact you have heavily relied upon studies conducted on a completely different patient population, you completely ignore that fact. It would have been correct and appropriate instead to include in your paper verbage such as "while this study was actually conducted on females", or "this study was conducted on females with breast CA" to maintain scientific integrity.

Referencing studies which have little or nothing to do with the subject at hand adds no weight to any arguement. It also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the science involved.

As to the very interesting study regarding Vit E, it is not an issue with my patients, as they are already properly supplementing same. The important point then to make is that it must be a true "natural" Vitamin E, including the full spread of tocopherols. Basically, just look for the word "gamma" on the breakdown, and you should be alright.

As I recall...Dan Duchaine pioneered the use of Nolvadex in males to prevent Anabolis Steroid induced gynocomastia, based on research done in women solely, as his basis for formulating his theory.

How many such ntheories have you pioneered?

Im confused...did all of the abstracts refer to women or didn't they? You said they did. Did they or didn't they....it would seem that you made a comment without even reading all of the appropriate material.

You said "ALL" and it was not all.


Clearly.


There was one which did not fall into that category...hence "ALL" was an incorrect statement. So...I am left thinking you didn't even read ALL of the studies you saw fit to comment on.

Do you commonly make such oversights, where you say "ALL" of something is the case when it clearly isn't? Or do you simply not read all of the available evidence, then see fit to comment on it anyway? Did you read all of your medical textbooks, doctor, or only most of them...or some of them?

Funny that I have people on my PCT protocol right now and they're saying it's been working great, keeping their mood, libido, and strength up...and your protocol is used by...um...HRT-patients...yeah...great...really...lets talk about relevance now....

[SWALE]

Aren't all the studies you have "abstracted so far" with respect to estrogen metabolism conducted on females? And I'm not sure why the point is still lost on you that you should edit your paper to delineate which of the studies you reference were conducted on males, and which on females.

Earlier in this thread I asked if anyone had time to dig up and post the abstracts in sincere scientific curiosity. I'm not sure why the author has to immediately stoop to such baseless levels of communication. But it is my experience that it is common when someone is insecure of their knowledge base to resort to immature insult. It's just not what people of academic integrity do. Instead, they welcome such dialogue, as doing so SHOULD reinforce the author's original points, and illuminate same for all to learn and appreciate.

There is no question drugs of the SERM class antagonize estrogen at the breast of both males and females. That is not news. But trying to extrapolate to situations involving more complex drug-to-drug interactions is not scientifically valid. Male and female Endocrine systems are just too different to do that without actual proof. This, too, is an important point for you to grasp.

Or are you claiming that because one application of one specific medication, created originally for treating females, also works for males, means that every single such medication, and more importantly, polypharmacy, therefore must also be true? This is sort of a logic question--but one with real life application. And it is critical to your arguement.

You should grasp the importance of stating when studies have been performed on a population different from the desired application. This is just common practice when presenting scientific works. This is an absolute necessity if one is to be taken seriously by those who actually possess professional expertise.

This has been a peave of mine on the Boards for years now. We have to apreciate not only what scientific studies say, but also what they DO NOT say.

You might also want to learn something about works of the physician you are trying to insult here before making any more comments embarrassing to yourself. I may have been working in this area before you were even born. There are countless thousands of guys on the Boards who can set you straight on this point. Alternqatively, you could actually do a little research before you write.

[ciobl]

Originally Posted by hooker

As I recall...Dan Duchaine pioneered the use of Nolvadex in males to prevent Anabolis Steroid induced gynocomastia, based on research done in women solely, as his basis for formulating his theory.

he has been criticized for the lack of scientific references provided.

How many such ntheories have you pioneered?

uncalled for...a better answer would have been "swale, my product is aimed at a bodybuilding community - male and female species" ...........or........."sure swale, next time i will correct these textual mishaps"

Originally Posted by hooker

...and your protocol is used by...um...HRT-patients...yeah...great...really...lets talk about relevance now....

to say that hrt patients are not relevant to you in the presence of personal tastes, preferences, likes, dislikes, beliefs, judgements although are not appropiate or advisable to use have no place on the discussion about the references in question and therefore it is a disputable unlogical assertion from a scientific gradual progressive standpoint and it is one of the biggest absurdities i have come across. Relevancy it is viewed from a scientific point of view as anything that does not interferes, obstructs, tampers any scientific study or progression of the material in question not as a personal preference of any individual or specie. so it seems the use of 'relevancy' about hrt patients was not a matter of scientific discussion but more a personal preference of such dialogist. Any point we try to make we must not forget the above indirect or direct assertion about relevancy that indirectly suggests your writings are directed to a bodybuilding community but from a scientific gradual progressive standpoint any writing about bodybuilding medical supplementation if it is related to any medical supplementation must be referenced, cited, quoted and mentioned with plenty, various and detailed medical references.

[hooker]

Originally Posted by ciobl

he has been criticized for the lack of scientific references provided.

Duchaine was right more often than not. He pioneered the use of Nolvadex, Periactin/Zaiteden (SP?) with Clen, brought DNP to the BB'ing world...

So...yeah, he's been criticized...but not by anyone who his achievements haven't dwarfed.

[HeadDoc]

the relevance of the article is dependant upon its ultility to those using hormones at superphysiologic levels. The validity of its conclusions and recommendations depend upon the quality of the research included and the generality of results to the populations studied. Good science requires that the scientist qualify conclusions to the population or sample under study and the conditions under which the conclusions are drawn. For instance, in vitro studies on cells, tissue, and organs can offer promising hypotheses without much generality at all. For instance, I could hypothesize that arsenic kills the AIDS virus in a petri dish, but no one would run out and start using arsenic to treat AIDS. Within in vivostudies, new research must clearly show how the current investigation systematically extends or limits conclusions based upon exisiting data. An honest appraisal of some intervention needs to state the conditions under which the prior research is conducted. If the conditions of prior research is based upon postmenapausal females or females with cancer, than the results are certainly limited to those populations. Any other use of a hypothetical intervention is purely speculative and most scientist would state such.

Many people post trial or experimental variations of standard protocols on the boards. They are looking for feedback--hopefully before they start something. This is how we help one another. We give advice based on our experience of the same or similar intervention. Some of these variants are worth formal investigation for purposes of helping specific individuals under limited or specific conditions. Then real science can begin. After reading the article I am left to conclude that the real science could begin once the author's recommendatons are studied in conditions that can be systematically replicated for the specific samples under identical biophysical conditions. Until then, buyer beware.

[hooker]

Originally Posted by SWALE

Aren't all the studies you have "abstracted so far" with respect to estrogen metabolism conducted on females? And I'm not sure why the point is still lost on you that you should edit your paper to delineate which of the studies you reference were conducted on males, and which on females.

Earlier in this thread I asked if anyone had time to dig up and post the abstracts in sincere scientific curiosity. I'm not sure why the author has to immediately stoop to such baseless levels of communication. But it is my experience that it is common when someone is insecure of their knowledge base to resort to immature insult. It's just not what people of academic integrity do. Instead, they welcome such dialogue, as doing so SHOULD reinforce the author's original points, and illuminate same for all to learn and appreciate.

There is no question drugs of the SERM class antagonize estrogen at the breast of both males and females. That is not news. But trying to extrapolate to situations involving more complex drug-to-drug interactions is not scientifically valid. Male and female Endocrine systems are just too different to do that without actual proof. This, too, is an important point for you to grasp.

Or are you claiming that because one application of one specific medication, created originally for treating females, also works for males, means that every single such medication, and more importantly, polypharmacy, therefore must also be true? This is sort of a logic question--but one with real life application. And it is critical to your arguement.

You should grasp the importance of stating when studies have been performed on a population different from the desired application. This is just common practice when presenting scientific works. This is an absolute necessity if one is to be taken seriously by those who actually possess professional expertise.

This has been a peave of mine on the Boards for years now. We have to apreciate not only what scientific studies say, but also what they DO NOT say.

You might also want to learn something about works of the physician you are trying to insult here before making any more comments embarrassing to yourself. I may have been working in this area before you were even born. There are countless thousands of guys on the Boards who can set you straight on this point. Alternqatively, you could actually do a little research before you write.

Nope. The one I abstracted on Vitamin E was done in rodents and human males.

I would welcome it if you had what I consider to be valid points (and some are and some aren't), and if you read the studies you are talking about. You asked me if one of them was conducted in "Place XYZ" and claimed another was "done in females" and finally claimed "ALL abstracts..." When all 3 of your questions or claims made it obvious you didn't even read all the work you were commenting on. I don't generally reply to people who didn't read the thing they are commenting on. I showed you a modicum of courtesy by even addressing your ill-informed claims.

No. I never made that sweeping claim. I made that claim in certain specific instances. You are creating a clear strawman fallacy.

No, it is not. My degree (one of them) is in philosophy with a concentration in logic, so I think I know how logic works...and you are saying that my claim must encompass "ALL" of a certain class of medications, when really it need only encompass the ones I specifically mention in the way I mention them. An analogy: I can claim that the engine in my car is grey without making the claim that other engines are grey, and without also claiming that my car is grey. Again, you are claiming otherwise, creating another informal fallacy.

Oh...like the 0-references in your PCT? Is that research? How about I just never use any references in anything I write? Then I could be just like you...

Perhaps it was your insulting PMs. You asked me several questions which told me you didn't even research the abstracts you were criticizing, and then questioned my educational background.

Its not.

I guess. Another mediocre mod isn't who I'm trying to impress though. I'll have to consult with someone who actually produced a body of work that I respect for an opinion on that that I'll actually consider.


As you did via PM to me?


I'll be frank and say that I'm no longer going to reply to your PMs or your public posts. You don't even read the studies I reference, you don't have a grasp of logic, and you don't produce any work that impresses me, from what I've read of you on various boards. Sorry, but this dialogue with you is over. You can critique my work all you want, by creating logical fallacies and by not even reading the abstracts, then misrepresenting them. You may even convince the less educated people on the boards, who aren't versed in logic or valid argumentation, that you are correct. But you still won't be. It's sad that in PM to me you said my work will help people, etc...then in another one, after I asked you to stop PM'ing me without reading the studies I referenced, you replied and said you're going to discredit me publicly. Pathetic.

[SWALE]

Well said, HeadDoc.

On the matter of "relevancy", while AAS use clearly is not TRT (as, for instance, 100mg of test cyp per week is not a "good cycle") both topics are involved with hormonal manipulation, the same hormones, the same medications are used, in the same body system (Endocrine), in the same body (specifically, the MALE Body Human). The EXTREME relevancy is blatantly apparent to any- and everyone who has any knowledge of the subject at hand.

[SWALE]

Umm..does anyone see, in the article on Vit E, any mention of estrogen metabolism or manipulation?

[ciobl]

he showed potential until i saw this:

Originally Posted by hooker

I can claim that the engine in my car is grey without making the claim that other engines are grey, and without also claiming that my car is grey.

[Millard Baker]

Quote: